Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by orc4hire:
The MG42 is still in use too; converted to NATO caliber and with a few other minor changes it still serves the German army as the MG1 (I believe that's the designation....)

Quite right. The designation is actually
MG-3, and has a squad support version w\bi-pod and is also commonly found on a vehicle mount. Somewhat enhanced, the appearance and performance of the weapon is very
much as the original. It is briefly discussed and pictured in "Modern Land Combat" Portland House, C. 1987.


------------------

Greg.

37 mill AA...
can suddenly ruin your day.

Originally posted by USMCGrunt:
Jerrek, just an FYI.

(Sorry 1stSgt, I'll work on bringing it down to 6")

Grunt your on the Next Range Detail!!
I may have missed it. My apoligies I just rolled in from Victorville Ca (George AFB) watching a platoon of my Tanks and 3/4 taking part in the Marine Corps' Warfighting Lab Urban experiment GREAT SH**!! BUT....How about the Flamethrower, or the Flame Tank.


------------------
1stSgt
Semper Fi
"Steel on Target"
Company B 1st Tank Bn

The G-11 is a radical improvement - especially as it is able to fire a 3-shot burst into 60mm cirlce at 500m (or something like that), using caseless 4,47mm highspeed ammo - no, armorpiercing it is not.

Originally posted by orc4hire:
Sorry Arralen, that performance doesn't qualify as a radical improvement. Compare the issue weapons of 1840 (single shot black powder muskets, the same basic design as had been in use at the beginning of the century) to the issue weapons of 1900. Now _that's_ a radical improvement in the same span of time as we're looking at.

Just the question what the word "radical" means...

Besides, I haven't seen any other gun than the G-11 (and maybe the Steyr Flechette) fire automated 3-shot bursts (and 3 shot only from one pull of the trigger), where the 3rd shot is out of the barrel before the recoil starts to hit the shooter .. it's something like 2000 rounds/minute ..

And it's defintily intended that the three shot go into 60mm (or even 80mm) circle instead "all through the same hole" .. chance of doing significant damage is much greater that way.

But you're right if you say that the G-11 is still "an ordinary rifle" - really radically changed design you'll find with the Steyr Flechette ...

Arralen

Radical: 1. fundamental, basic. 2. carried to the farthest limit, extreme.

The switch from smoothbore muskets was radical; it dramatically increased range and accuracy with no performance drawbacks, and drastically changed battlefield tactics. Same with the change from black powder to nitro powder. I can't see placing making ammo slightly more compact, and increasing the cyclic rate a bit, in that same category.

Remember, it's the _effect_ that has to be radical, not the design itself. If someone managed to make a rifle out of pudding, that would certainly be different, but if it didn't shoot any better than an existing rifle it wouldn't be much of an advance.

Originally posted by 1stSgt USMC:

Grunt your on the Next Range Detail!!
I may have missed it. My apoligies I just rolled in from Victorville Ca (George AFB) watching a platoon of my Tanks and 3/4 taking part in the Marine Corps' Warfighting Lab Urban experiment GREAT SH**!! BUT....How about the Flamethrower, or the Flame Tank.


[/B][/QUOTE]

Range Detail? Great!!! Always looking to add that 6th award bar to my expert badge.



------------------
USMCGrunt

-When it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight.

The M3 Greyhound would still be usefull as a recon vehicle, fast with an ok gun(not real good pen wise, but it has canister).

Have you folks forgoten the Moltov coctail.
If I remember it right when it`s produktion started first in finland, they emptied first the Koskenkorva bottles (booze) then they fild it with taar and other things.
So I think the Moltov coctail works effectively today and same dos the Booze. :p

I believe the explosive C-4 was formulated late in WW2 and is still in use today, also TNT has been around since the 1800's and has not changed.

We can't forget napalm (basicly gasoline with with ingredients to make is stick to anything it touches). We also get one of our most famous movie quotes from it:

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning"

And last but not least who can forget the battleships Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin. 16 in guns may not be the biggest ever carried but with the rocket assisted projectiles they are some of the longest ranged guns ever.

Well said Tortfeasor. The alcohol works still great and all the other components are widely available. It is everymans weapon. It is also widely used but the ones they use in telly only have gasoline in them. So they are not as good. But it is good to know a tank killing weapon you can make home in case you need one. Althoug somebody might think it is treason to use the Stolichnaja botle that I have at home.

I think the old battleships and their guns are not valid any moore. They sure are effective but they take too many men to do the job and still need to get too close to the target in comparison to their size.

I want to give some clarifications on the G-11.
orc4hire, that weapon works - the only thing that they couldn't manage was full-auto with a 50 round clip. They couldn't find out why the weapon jammed between the last ten shots on many trials. So they just cut the clip to have only 40 rounds and full auto works fine.
And Arralen, the Bundeswehr didn't supplied that weapon not because it is expensive but it's unusual ammo; Germany as part of the NATO uses only munition that every other member of the NATO can use (the 120mm tank gun in the M1 Abrahams is the same as the French LeÇlerk and German Leopard 2, the 155m artillery ammo can be used by every member and so on down to the infantry weapons). To have a weapon that uses completely different ammo would put additional logistic problems to combined actions.

And the discussion over 'radical' improvement...
So you said that upgrading from smoth bore to rifled bore was radical ... (so the new smoth bore 120mm cannon is a fallback ?? just joking).
The G-11 uses an octagonal bore that way the bullet doesn't loose as much energy as a bullet looses in a rifled bore.
Caseless ammo is IMHO as radical as improving from powder and ball loaded guns to cartridge loaded.
The ammo is much lighter so a soldier can carry three times the ammo. No need to hide/pickup the cartridge cases in covered ops - there is no trace that a soldier was there and fired a weapon. No hot cases that might hit you or another squadmember.
There is no need to have a clip and fill it by hand - the clip for the G-11 carries 80 rounds (2 x 40) and the empty clip is very leightweight in comparision with clips for the G-3, not even mentioning an empty 50-round MG belt...; so the ammo is always distributed clipwise and not a box with loose cartridges.
The weapon itself is KISS - keep it simple stupid - meaning the whole fire mechanism is enclosed and no objects can get into it nor can the soldier open the mechanism and by accident break it. The weapon is very reliable and even mud wont really hurt the weapon.
Another thing is that the weapon is 'self cleaning' - for all who served for one or another army, remember the weapon cleaning after firing the weapon; the G-11 doesn't need that - each shot will make sure that it bore and mechanism gets a cleaning gas blow.
The short and lightweight overall design is well balanced - it is short and light enough to not hinder the soldier - on the other hand long and heavy enough to have a good and accurate hold on the weapon itself.
Together with the build in scope and the accuracy of the weapon in single and burst mode it is IMHO a radical improved weapon.
murx

Originally posted by jerrek:
lets see if any ww2 equipment would still be of use on a modern battlefield...

Well, let me think... :rolleyes: I'd say men perhaps? They're still ready and willing to kill... .

Some kamikaze's too...


I think I saw some really old Russian equipment in the war at Yugoslavia.

Also the 40mm Bofor guns that are used in the Greek army, aren't WWII weapons?